Abstract
There has been little, if any, research looking at how well practical science communicators are connected with the relevant research literature. Indeed, there is little—if anything—written about who makes up the science communication community. This chapter reports on a short survey of attendees at the British Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2007 Science Communication conference. The survey gives some indication of what science communicators have by way of training, and what they are reading that is relevant to their professional lives. It finds that the community is relatively young and predominantly female, with generally high levels of science education. Training in science communication is less prevalent, however, and over 40% of the conference delegates who responded did not read any of the relevant journals in the field. This chapter discusses whether there may be mutual misunderstanding between science communication practitioners and social scientists who carry out research in the area. It puts forward an example of the use of research on public perceptions of risk in science communication training.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bauer, M., Allum, N. & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79–95.
Beck, U. (1985) (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Durant, J. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe. London: Science Museum.
EC (European Commission) (2001). Science and society action plan. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (European Commission) (2002). Report of the expert group benchmarking the promotion of RTD culture and the public understanding of science. Brussels: European Commission.
EC (European Commission) (2005). Eurobarometer 224. Europeans, science and society. Brussels: European Commission.
Frewer, L., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M. & Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 363–372.
Gregory, J. & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. London: Plenum.
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20, 519–539.
Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S. & Griffin, R. (2002). Attributions in explanations of risk estimates. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 243–257.
Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Magill, S. & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Leeds: Leeds Media Services.
Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K. & Vincent, K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 435–457.
Major, A. & Atwood, L. (2004). Environmental risks in the news: Issues, sources, problems and values. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 295–308.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115–120.
Miller, S. (2003). Science communication’s burnt bridges. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 167–182.
Miller, S. (2007). The fourth deficit? Science and Public Affairs, September, 15.
O’Neill, K. (2003). A vital fluid: Risk, controversy and the politics of blood donation in the era of ‘mad cow disease’. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 359–380.
Payne, R. (1992). Chernobyl reaches Norway: The accident, science and the threat to cultural knowledge. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 261–70.
Rayner, S. (2007). The fourth deficit?—Reply. Science and Public Affairs, September, 16.
SCST (Select Committee on Science and Technology) (2000). Science and society. Third report. London: House of Lords.
Stocklmayer, S., Gore, M. & Bryant, C. (Eds.) (2001). Science communication in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer/Academic.
UK Government (2003). GM Nation? Report. Retrieved from http://www.gmnation.org.uk/docs/gmnation_finalreport.pdf.
Weingart, P., Engels, A. & Pansegrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication: Discourse on climate change in science, politics and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 261–283.
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and the public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 281–304.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Miller, S. (2008). So Where’s the Theory? on the Relationship between Science Communication Practice and Research. In: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., Shi, S. (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8597-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8598-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)